winwave wrote:Army did beat Navy but that was when Worth was injured. They were a different team and Abey was just seeing his first playing time. Monken is a good coach and is improving Army but they haven't established themselves the way Navy has. The toughest part of playing Army this year is that it's the week after Oklahoma . Glad we have a bye after that stretch with two triple option teams and the Sooners.

I actually think Army is going to be tough this year. No, they aren't as good as Navy, but they don't need to be in order to give us a very tough game and potentially a loss. Fearthewave podcast (this is a better listen than the weekly coaches show, and must-listen for any Tulane fan) had the Navy Blogger on this week, someone who knows the Army program very well, and thinks they could win 9/10 games this season. He went into a lot of detail on it.

We match up well with both Navy and Army because our interior DL and MLBs are good enough to stop the dive. Well, they were last year. This year, we will know in 24 hours.

Yeah the only teams the seem capable of giving Army trouble at the moment are @Ohio State, @Tulane, @Air Force, and Navy; so 8 wins appears to be its floor unless something unexpected happens with the home games against Duke or Temple.

winwave wrote:Army did beat Navy but that was when Worth was injured. They were a different team and Abey was just seeing his first playing time. Monken is a good coach and is improving Army but they haven't established themselves the way Navy has. The toughest part of playing Army this year is that it's the week after Oklahoma . Glad we have a bye after that stretch with two triple option teams and the Sooners.

I actually think Army is going to be tough this year. No, they aren't as good as Navy, but they don't need to be in order to give us a very tough game and potentially a loss. Fearthewave podcast (this is a better listen than the weekly coaches show, and must-listen for any Tulane fan) had the Navy Blogger on this week, someone who knows the Army program very well, and thinks they could win 9/10 games this season. He went into a lot of detail on it.

We match up well with both Navy and Army because our interior DL and MLBs are good enough to stop the dive. Well, they were last year. This year, we will know in 24 hours.

I do think it will be a tough game. They are getting better and as I said they catch us at a good time for them. When you look at their schedule they should get at least 6. They don't play a tough schedule by any stretch.

winwave wrote:Army did beat Navy but that was when Worth was injured. They were a different team and Abey was just seeing his first playing time. Monken is a good coach and is improving Army but they haven't established themselves the way Navy has. The toughest part of playing Army this year is that it's the week after Oklahoma . Glad we have a bye after that stretch with two triple option teams and the Sooners.

I actually think Army is going to be tough this year. No, they aren't as good as Navy, but they don't need to be in order to give us a very tough game and potentially a loss. Fearthewave podcast (this is a better listen than the weekly coaches show, and must-listen for any Tulane fan) had the Navy Blogger on this week, someone who knows the Army program very well, and thinks they could win 9/10 games this season. He went into a lot of detail on it.

We match up well with both Navy and Army because our interior DL and MLBs are good enough to stop the dive. Well, they were last year. This year, we will know in 24 hours.

Yeah the only teams the seem capable of giving Army trouble at the moment are @Ohio State, @Tulane, @Air Force, and Navy; so 8 wins appears to be its floor unless something unexpected happens with the home games against Duke or Temple.

@ Ohio State, @ Air Force and home versus Duke and Temple are a whole lot tougher games ON PAPER AT THIS POINT than @ Tulane, which most Army fans (and their fan base dwarfs Tulane's) circled as an easy win. What was the score the last time we played Duke and Temple? I believe we lost those two games by close to 80 points combined.

Yes, I think most Army fans think they'll be "walkin' in New Orleans" and walkin out with a W. They had a very good year 3 under Monken last year and look to step up this year. There's no reason or argument why any Tulane fan should think this is a W. We will be underdogs, regardless of the outcome this week, when we play Army. And we'll probably be coming off of a 40+ point loss, but that should mean we're ready to attack a lesser opponent, not hide in a corner and lick our wounds. Anyone that played the game on any level knows that playing a much better opponent one week and a weaker on the following week usually leads to dominating the lesser opponent. If you collapse after playing a dominant opponent, you were never a good team to begin with.

There's lots of reasons to think we can get a W against Army. We are a much different team than the last time we played Duke and Duke has stepped back since then. No comparison between then and now. So they upset Temple and beat Navy when Navy stopped winning games b/c they didn't have Worth anymore. So their success could certainly be viewed as overstated. As for the timing of the game we will have just played a triple option team. Tuning up for it once is one thing . Having to come back and do it again two weeks later is tough. We will have had our legs chopped against Navy and then had a very physical game against Oklahoma. Like I said that sets up well for Army. No one has said you can put it in the books as a W. What's been said is they aren't in Navy's class at this point.

The fact that you've faced the same triple option offense two weeks prior doesn't make it more difficult to prepare for it makes it easier. Your logic makes no sense. I've watched Army fairly closely for a long, long time. West Point is one of the best places to see a game in the country, and I've been going there, typically once or twice a year, since the 70's. This Army team is much better than anything they've fielded in a very long time, and IMHO is better right now than Navy. And they were a year ago as well.

winwave wrote:I'm talking about the extreme mental discipline it takes to prepare yourself for it. That's tough to muster just a couple of weeks apart.

You play 12, maybe 13 games a year. They prepare for these 12 games 365 days/year. If it's too tough for them to mentally prepare for an offense they faced two weeks before, then they're playing the wrong sport. BS argument.

Not at all. To be successful against these type of teams means going to another level of mental discipline. I think that's tough for a team to do. I didn't like it when we scheduled two in the same season and even less when the games were put so close together. It was just a few seasons ago when many of our fans were complaining when we had to face multiple option teams in one season. So others get it.

They complained because those teams, which were pretty good defensively, were getting dominated by the triple option. I still think your argument is BS, and most people that played the game at any level would agree. An offense that is unfamiliar is MUCH more difficult to prepare for than one that you faced two weeks prior. Agree to disagree.

winwave wrote:Not at all. To be successful against these type of teams means going to another level of mental discipline. I think that's tough for a team to do. I didn't like it when we scheduled two in the same season and even less when the games were put so close together. It was just a few seasons ago when many of our fans were complaining when we had to face multiple option teams in one season. So others get it.

No doubt it is tougher. But then by definition certainly the service academy teams have lesser talent. I'm looking for things to go our way where other schools say we spend 51 weeks prepping for spread or pro-style offenses and then Fritz shows up with his deal. That's just not fair.......

DfromCT wrote:They complained because those teams, which were pretty good defensively, were getting dominated by the triple option. I still think your argument is BS, and most people that played the game at any level would agree. An offense that is unfamiliar is MUCH more difficult to prepare for than one that you faced two weeks prior. Agree to disagree.

No they wouldn't agree. Like I said they said here very loudly that they agree with my take. Agree to disagree.

DfromCT wrote:They complained because those teams, which were pretty good defensively, were getting dominated by the triple option. I still think your argument is BS, and most people that played the game at any level would agree. An offense that is unfamiliar is MUCH more difficult to prepare for than one that you faced two weeks prior. Agree to disagree.

No they wouldn't agree. Like I said they said here very loudly that they agree with my take. Agree to disagree.

Your take is illogical. Say it as loud as you like, it still makes no sense. You'd rather face the triple option when you haven't seen it for a year or longer than twice in a season? Yeah, sound fundamental logic. Shout it from the top of the hills, it still makes NO sense.

Not what I said. We face it regularly with Navy on the schedule. Our DC worked under Monken. We now the system. It's just not something you want to face multiple times in the same season. All the cut blocking taking your players legs out. Then the mental discipline you have to muster that is much more than usual. I get that you don't get it.

winwave wrote:Not what I said. We face it regularly with Navy on the schedule. Our DC worked under Monken. We now the system. It's just not something you want to face multiple times in the same season. All the cut blocking taking your players legs out. Then the mental discipline you have to muster that is much more than usual. I get that you don't get it.

Fido, what you don't get is that it's easier to play the same system twice in three weeks than it is to face it once every so often. I'll guarantee you the announcers next week say multiple times that Tulane should be ready to go against the triple option because they faced Navy two weeks prior. Your logic is illogical.

But sink those teeth in, Fido, and once again take the last word so you feel like you've won an argument where you logic makes ZERO sense.

Again that's not what I said. We know the system. It's mustering that extreme mental discipline again in such a short period that is going to be tough. As I posted above we had many post their thought on being against playing multiple option teams in one season.

Yep. Tulane played better than expected versus Grambling and Navy, and, given some of the uncertainty around the AAC, ESPN's adjustments move Tulane upward. @ECU and @FIU seem like Ws for certain at this point and @Oklahoma will be an L, but the remaining 3 Ws needed for bowl eligibility are still up in the air:

OK, all you whiners and naysayers, y'all out of excuses to not attend our games.

We are playing well; correction extremely well. We are playing the entire game. Our players are invested and we need to invest in Tulane athletics immediately by attending our remaining games instead of continued whining about how expensive seats are. Just as the Plymouth is long gone so are 1960 prices.

But for a bad center snap and a bad decision by Coach Fritz we'd be 2 - 0 and Army is winnable after whatever may come from our trip to Norman.